Congratulations comrade Obama for winning the chairmanship of the freshly renamed socialist U.S.S.A. :) Joke aside, I think that one thing this election showed is that smear campaigns and disinformation don't work as good any more in the internet age, and simply attaching a false "communist" label to your opponent doesn't suffice to win. And that is a good thing. Whatever you think of the outcome, I think the high turn-out, clear mandate, and increased political awareness are all things to celebrate about this election.

The immediate effects of Obama becoming the next president will be mostly an improvement of the image of America, which could and should be better. But America will not change all that much. There will still be US soldiers stationed in Iraq in a year, although we might get a better idea of when they will be leaving. We might see universal healthcare introduced, but propaganda aside that is actually a good idea from a capitalist point of view: Treating sick people only once they reach the emergency room is neither cheap nor effective, but that is the current policy. Letting poor sick people die is a lot cheaper, but fortunately even capitalist America doesn't do that. So once we accept the fact that the state can't let people just die, the question is simply one of how to provide them with healthcare in the most efficient way.

I must admit that I'm not the world's biggest Obama fan. I don't think "hope" and "change" are suitable political programs; I'd like to see a bit more substance in the future. But McCain clearly disqualified himself by veering to the right after his nomination, and going for the Republican base instead of all America. So I do congratulate Obama on his clear victory, and hope he will make the best out of it. As he has a clear majority in the House and Senate as well (albeit not filibuster-proof), he should have all the tools available to implement his ideas. He will be judged on how well he achieves that. I wish him luck.
- posted by Tobold Stoutfoot @ 8:13 AM Permanent Link
Links to this post

Comments:

Oh I suppose if you count a record number of voters turning out to vote with no clue about the issues as increased political awareness...then sure. Sorry but I am still a bit jaded by this election..not the winner, just the process.

Either way I wish our new president the best of luck and hope he can prove himself worthy of the great honor he has been given as the first African American president. I'm glad our country can turn this corner, I just hope we didn't make a mistake by electing Mr. Obama as the first such president.

Smear campaigning aside, which by the way there was more than enough to go around on both sides, there are plenty of question marks about his decisions in the past which he has consistently denied to respond truthfully to. The fact that the majority of the press seemed to want to ignore these issues makes this election leave a very bad taste in my mouth.

Now maybe the issues with Ayers, Acorn, and other possible problems are nothing, but in all cases it seemed to me that he lied about his relationships and/or involvement with these persons or organizations.

But either way, I wish him the best and hope he can help restore this great nation to where it should be. I may not agree with a lot of his thoughts, but he is my president and as such as my respect as our commander in chief. I hope that he proves my doubts without merit and this becomes an even bigger victory in the future as this country turns around the slide it's in.

I think the high turn-out, clear mandate, and increased political awareness are all things to celebrate about this election.

I wouldn't call it a clear mandate. The popular vote was very close and that's what is important for a strong mandate.

He took a lot of states (which translates to a lot of electoral votes) but he didn't necessarily have big wins in all those states.

I think what is truly interesting about this campaign is how it will change future presidential campaigns.

Obama decline public campaign funding (which everyone has accepted since the 70s) and that allowed him to significantly outspend McCain in the final months of the electiion.

In a traditional campaign, each candidate raises funding until they get the nomination. Once that happens after the convention, they are allowed to tap into public campaign funding. However, that has restrictions and a cap that can't be exceeded.

By declining the funds, Obama wasn't required to restrict spending to that cap. He actually spend more in October than McCain was allowed to spend between the end of the convention and the election.

On a personal note, I wasn't a fan of either canidate. I've really become disgusted with how much special interest has tainted our federal government. That's the real problem with our country, not any political party.

What impressed me was the decency of John McCain's concession speech and the clear stand he took against the more fanatical elements of the crowd attempting to boo Obama (something he has done throughout the campaign, to his credit.)

I can't agree with Mark's comments about the lack of political awareness: that's hardly unique to Obama's supporters. The very idea that someone (Sarah Palin) who had never travelled overseas until 2007 could be taken seriously as a politician suggests that ignorance is not only alive and well, but actively encouraged by parts of the Republican base.

Would things have been different if McCain had chosen a stronger running mate, such as Meg Whitman? That's hard to say, but I suspect the race would have been closer in the swing states.

As for ignoring the Ayers issue, it's unclear what you mean: I've seen it covered in enormous detail on US TV. It's hardly the networks' fault that the evidence simply doesn't support the "Obama is a terrorist" smear. As for questionable decisions in the past - did you oppose George W Bush on the same grounds?

Treating sick people only once they reach the emergency room is neither cheap nor effective, but that is the current policy. Letting poor sick people die is a lot cheaper, but fortunately even capitalist America doesn't do that. So once we accept the fact that the state can't let people just die, the question is simply one of how to provide them with healthcare in the most efficient way.

We can't afford national health care when our population continues to add over a million immigrants a year (both legal and illegal).

"That would only be true if every immigrant added less to the GDP than his health care costs, which fortunately isn't the case."

Because the only cost that an immigrant adds is health care costs...

Regarding the main topic, it's been an interesting story to watch and learn as the media and increased spending won the presidency. The spending part puts even more distance between the two party system and other options, which is unfortunate.

"Increased spending won the presidency"This is a fair point, and a big problem in many western countries. It's partially compensated for in the UK by the requirement for the major TV channels to carry party political broadcasts (with numbers determined by previous election results), although that rule doesn't apply to print media or other forms of advertising.

I'd like to see a (fairly low, say $1000) cap on the amount of money each individual or organisation can give to any campaign. That would help prevent big organisations or wealthy individuals from gaining too great an advantage.

Damn it's good that he won, the world would suffer if McCain and that retard Palin had been elected. I guess it shows that "zomg if u elect this guy we will b communists kthxbye" didn't really work (although it's a false argument anyway, us Western Europeans are clearly extreme Socialists on the verge of Communism......)

you seem to believe that McCain or his surrogates were calling Obama a "communist".

No, McCain never said that. My comment was directed squarely at those who called Obama everything from socialist, to communist, to marxist in the comment section of my blog. Much of the fearmongering of the Republican campaign wasn't directly linked to McCain.

Personally I think a strong mandate was sent - in response to the person who said the popular vote was "close," I'd advise you to check again. It wasn't very close at all, with Obama winning it by 7 million votes, more than double the 3 million that Bush won by in 2004.

Of course as with any election, the proof is in the pudding, and in the actions and policies Obama will take as President.

He veered right after the nomination? He didn't veer anywhere. McCain was on permanent S-Curve his entire campaign and couldn't figure out who he wanted to please. However, he certainly wasn't far right (unless you count abortion and the like). If he had become a true conservative (which republicans simply can't understand anymore) and actually laid out plans to reduce spending, end costly global conflict that makes us less secure and defend our own borders against illegal immigration he would had won easily.

Instead he lost to a Disney movie, a feel-good story and a media darling.....and he deserved too.

Nice to see the side that marginalized themselves with Rovian, race baiting, hate mongering, name calling, Hitler-esque lying, Bridge-to-Nowhere spinning, McCarthyist finger pointing, "he's not one of us" ethnicity splitting politics have managed to weaken themselves even further.

Even at it's strongest, the conservatives have had about 30-40% of the population. Nowadays the pundits are saying that it's down to 20-25%. If they continue this exclusivity ("real" America vs everyone else) talk instead of Obama's inclusiveness, they'll continue to lose more and more support. Surprisingly, the wing nuts like Limbaugh continue to talk about ex-communicating the non-believers.

The Republicans need to take a long hard look at themselves, and rebuild the party. The brand has deviated from what it was back in the Reagan years.

Nice to see the side that marginalized themselves with Rovian, race baiting, hate mongering, name calling, Hitler-esque lying, Bridge-to-Nowhere spinning, McCarthyist finger pointing, "he's not one of us" ethnicity splitting politics have managed to weaken themselves even further.

Exaggerate much? Seriously, rants like that are laughable. You mention hate, yet your words are filled with them.

Actually, it was more like 1984 double-think. Honestly, anyone that thinks a politician that was part of a secessionist party is more patriotic than anyone else obviously has issues. The Obama Story (sounds like a movie already) may have gotten more press, but a lot of skeletons in the Republican's closets were never pushed at all, meanwhile Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc were incessantly hammered into every discussion. Keating Five much? Focus on education when your kids are high school drop outs? Blessed by a witch doctor? Seriously?

I just love the naivete every election where people continue to rally behind and believe that a candidate from either of the two major parties will do anything to fundamentally fix this country.

Until the people of this country learn to take responsibility for their own actions and situation instead of blaming others and expecting other to do it for us...how can we expect any different from our leaders?

To Sven, I never said it was just Obama voters....there were tons of people on both sides who probably cast their vote based on the color of ones skin and not their platform. Personally I didn't like either of the major 2 candidates and wish a 3rd party could step up to the plate one day vote wise. I know they are there now, but so far haven't been able to push the our current 2 much.

They have two years, and then we shall see what good, or bad, they can do.

I would not be surprised that in 2 years the Democrats loose the House and/or the Senate.

As for restoring America's image: Many people have a poor grasp of history. America has NEVER been universaly loved nor hated. Not since Day 1, and certainly not now, 230+ years later. Even in times like WW1 and WW2, America was not liked...even by her allies.

I surely hope that Obama remembers that he is the guardian of America's interests and security, and should not go around kowtowing to the world for their 'approval' on anything. I hope that he DOES go to our allies, ask for help, but continue to do what is best for America, whether those otehr countries give their help or not.

America is not here to seek Europe, Asia, or any other countries blessings.

And frankly, IMO, Europe and Asia are certainly not the bright shining examples of how America 'should be' anyway.

What makes me sad is that most people who voted for Obama never actually took a hard look at what changes he proposes. His economic plan is only going to hurt the middle class down the road because after the initial burst of money that americans recieve from tax cuts is spent, then thats it. Some people go out and by a tv or something like that or pay of credit cards but the rest of the economy remains the same. Corporations can't afford to keep people hired when no one is buying their products and when they can move to another country and pay less in taxes and payroll that is what they are going to do. Its not unamerican its capitalism.

Things like Universal healthcare and increased taxes for rich only serve to limit a free market society. The problem with Universal healthcare is that it does focus on effeciency so care itself suffers. The reason costs are so high right now is actually because of the high costs that providers pay in malpractice insurance. If people weren't so sue happy then healthcare wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is now and right now the only one really profiting is the insurance companies. Governemnt healthcare leads to overcrowded understaffed offices where overall care is actually reduced because doctors have to see many more patients in a day to keep his business running. You allready can see this in offices that accept Medicare vs ones that don't.

I was really disapointed though that the major campain efforts of McCain were that of misdirection and fear. Obama on the opposite end nearly had to say the word change louder then everyone else to get ellected. Its unfortunate that this election was decided on what sounds good and not what is best for the country.

Thank you, sir, for such a great blog. Gaming, and also the non-gaming articles and opinions. While I do not agree with all your POV, comments, etc. I applaud you posting WHATEVER you want on YOUR blog.

I'm just a spectator / commenter here, but even I remember what the basic rules are when going into someone elses 'house.'

Thank you again, and I certainly hope you are willing to continue your posting.

Oh, one more thing: Dude, how the hell do you get so much done? Wife, career, blogging, gaming.../boggle! You have clones don't you!

1) Obama was chosen because more electoral votes were given to him. He won more electoral college votes than McCain. I'm not a minority, yet, and I voted for him, because I thought he was superior to McCain/Palin. He's smart and will likely surround himself with smart people.

2) Well, no one knows how long Obama will live. If we are lucky, idiots and hate-mongers will not attempt to murder him. The fact that it is an issue should prove to the people outside of reality that the US is not "post-racial".

His job is tough and isn't for the light-hearted. Hopefully he can overcome all the crap he has to deal with, starting day 1.

I don't look foward to the next 4-8 years of slime that will be thrown at him like was done to Clinton. Don't get me wrong, when the media doesn't ask tough questions you get the Bush administration. But when the other party decides to demonize the other guy and not let him actually work, you get the Clinton years, of gridlock and half-measures.

Why do all the ideologues act like it's a huge tax increase on the wealthy? Obama kept on saying he's just planning on returning the tax rate on those making more than $250k/year back to what it was under Clinton.

Why do all the ideologues act like it's a huge tax increase on the wealthy? Obama kept on saying he's just planning on returning the tax rate on those making more than $250k/year back to what it was under Clinton.

Because they are ideologues, and have gotten quite invested in a point of view. The tax increase may not actually be large at all, but because it's being proposed by someone they don't like, and because it goes slightly against their ideology, they get quite upset about it.

(Think about what happens with nerfs in WoW for particular classes, actually, there seems ot be the same sort of insanity going in with the emotional investment put into something.)

I generally see politics as something that drives people completely insane, so nowadays I tend to stay out of it when the arguments start getting nutty.

It has been odd watching this election how lots of people get fixated on particular things and repeat them over and over, while other issues, like both McCain and Obama's actually proposals being most likely impossible, go unnoticed.

"Because they are ideologues, and have gotten quite invested in a point of view. The tax increase may not actually be large at all, but because it's being proposed by someone they don't like, and because it goes slightly against their ideology, they get quite upset about it."

Or maybe it's because of history?

Raising any taxes during a recession is a bad idea (tm).

"But the tax increase did take money out of people's hands that could have been spent more "efficiently" if not equitably, so it is considered to be a factor, which prolonged the downturn. Under the circumstances the government should have simply borrowed and engaged in generous deficit spending."

http://www.shambhala.org/business/goldocean/causdep.html

Bottom line, if the economy is tanking, increasing the tax burden is going to deepen and lengthen that tanking.

What makes me sad is that most people who voted for Obama never actually took a hard look at what changes he proposes. His economic plan is only going to hurt the middle class down the road because after the initial burst of money that americans recieve from tax cuts is spent, then thats it. Some people go out and by a tv or something like that or pay of credit cards but the rest of the economy remains the same. Corporations can't afford to keep people hired when no one is buying their products and when they can move to another country and pay less in taxes and payroll that is what they are going to do. Its not unamerican its capitalism.

Giving money to the middle class in the form of a stimulus package may or may not help the economy, but it is one of the best uses of government money to help the economy. A better use would be to, say, pay for infrastructure improvements which is VERY much so needed right now, but that ends up giving money to the poor as it is. The fact of the matter is that the lower and middle classes have a MUCH higher MPC than the upper class; More money will ALWAYS be injected into the economy through the middle class. Increased consumption is more important than increased investment.

And saying countries will move abroad because of higher taxes is ludicrous. The US has one of the lowest overall tax rates in the entire world. Payroll, sure, but unless you have an assembly line what you lose in going to a country with lower wages is generally not worth it. The fact of the matter is simply that higher taxes on the rich isn't going to start some mass migration of corporations.

Things like Universal healthcare and increased taxes for rich only serve to limit a free market society.

We never have had and never will have a free market society.

The problem with Universal healthcare is that it does focus on effeciency so care itself suffers. The reason costs are so high right now is actually because of the high costs that providers pay in malpractice insurance. If people weren't so sue happy then healthcare wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is now and right now the only one really profiting is the insurance companies. Governemnt healthcare leads to overcrowded understaffed offices where overall care is actually reduced because doctors have to see many more patients in a day to keep his business running. You allready can see this in offices that accept Medicare vs ones that don't.

The reason costs are so high right now is based on numerous reasons, and it is foolish to pin it on one. Technology, lack of competition, and many other things all contribute to our ridiculous costs. And there are many things we CAN work on, while stopping people from suing is pretty much an impossible to solve issue unless you resolve to attack civil liberties.

As for problems with people, it is better to have a glut of people with minor illnesses than a glut of people with minor illnesses that have progressed into major problems because their only recourse is the emergency room. Treating early is better.

I was really disapointed though that the major campain efforts of McCain were that of misdirection and fear. Obama on the opposite end nearly had to say the word change louder then everyone else to get ellected. Its unfortunate that this election was decided on what sounds good and not what is best for the country.

Hope was a byproduct, not an end of the Obama campaign. He made it more than clear, he made it ABUNDANTLY clear what his positions were and people supported him because they agreed with his positions, in comparison to McCain's if nothing else. The only way you could claim otherwise is willful ignorance.

Why do all the ideologues act like it's a huge tax increase on the wealthy?

To the previous anynomous poster who responded to me, this is the question that was being asked.

The response is an example of how I consider ideologues too emotionally invested in their side. The response focused on "proving" that a tax increase is bad, rather than and ignores the tax cuts and spending proposed, the huge debt/deficit that exists already, and other related issues.

The comments here are just more examples of how politics seems to make some people quite insane.

2) how long until he is killed or at least has an attempt on his life.Not long if history is any judge. A brief look at wikipedia suggests that most of the presidents of the last hundred years had some kind of attempted assassination. Fortunately, most of those were foiled at a relatively early stage. It's hard to imagine that Obama would be at lower risk.

"The response focused on "proving" that a tax increase is bad, rather than and ignores the tax cuts and spending proposed, the huge debt/deficit that exists already, and other related issues."

Actually, I didn't cover them because the proposals that will be enacted have not been revealed in detail enough to consider, but...

Yesterday Pelosi proposed a stimulus package that included two expansions of social programs, unemployment and food stamps. That's probably not the best use of the money.

On the positive side in this package is the creation of jobs through infrastructure projects, I can get behind that!

How about taking all the rest of the handout bits of that proposal and create more jobs? For example, how about jobs for addressing the significant technological needs of the federal, state, county and city governments?

I mean really, if we need people to work and we need the economy improved, let's lift people out of a core issue, instead of funding the core issue itself.

And that has a natural extending effect. Each middle class person working on a network or software system would then be spending more money going out to eat, buying business clothes, educating themselves, buying groceries, buying gas, and so forth. All of those activities collude to create need for people to provide those goods and services, which then causes economic growth, and keeps people in houses, at the same time providing opportunity for innovation and more job growth.

Directly paying for peoples homes, food, and giving them checks does NOT do that.

That's why social programs are a failure. Social programs should be for people who cannot get a job because of physical constraints. Not for able bodied people, if we must help them, then let's fund work not idleness.

"The comments here are just more examples of how politics seems to make some people quite insane."

I would recommend targetting the content, not the commenters.

I normally wouldn't even bother replying to you, but I used your comments as a springboard to potentially make people talk and think more clearly about what is and what should happen.

Giving money to the middle class in the form of a stimulus package may or may not help the economy, but it is one of the best uses of government money to help the economy. A better use would be to, say, pay for infrastructure improvements which is VERY much so needed right now, but that ends up giving money to the poor as it is. The fact of the matter is that the lower and middle classes have a MUCH higher MPC than the upper class; More money will ALWAYS be injected into the economy through the middle class. Increased consumption is more important than increased investment.

This of course all depends on the cycle of the economy we are in. Right now, we are in a depression, so increased consumption helps provide stabilization to the economy rather than increased savings (investment being ambiguously referencing GDP I). Since the present value of money is more lucrative at the present time than the future value of money, people are more willing to consume if provided the means to do so. However, in an economic boom, the opposite events hold true. Consumption needs to decrease and savings increase, hence we get more attractive future value of money and less attractive present value of money. The point being that it is very relative to the economic cycle we are in.

And saying countries will move abroad because of higher taxes is ludicrous. The US has one of the lowest overall tax rates in the entire world. Payroll, sure, but unless you have an assembly line what you lose in going to a country with lower wages is generally not worth it. The fact of the matter is simply that higher taxes on the rich isn't going to start some mass migration of corporations.

Higher taxes on the rich will not cause massive migrations, however increased corporate taxes are not good for the economy in a recession. And that is what Obama is proposing to do as well. He wants to raise taxes on medium-to-large businesses, which causes profit-savings measures to be taken into place at those companies. So, they fire people. Less people working, means less consumption, means prolonged recession. See your previous arguments.

We never have had and never will have a free market society.

A free market is a market in which property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. That would be in general the type of economy we function in. We have government interference at various levels, but in most markets, government interference is limited or does not exist.

The reason costs are so high right now is based on numerous reasons, and it is foolish to pin it on one. Technology, lack of competition, and many other things all contribute to our ridiculous costs. And there are many things we CAN work on, while stopping people from suing is pretty much an impossible to solve issue unless you resolve to attack civil liberties.

As for problems with people, it is better to have a glut of people with minor illnesses than a glut of people with minor illnesses that have progressed into major problems because their only recourse is the emergency room. Treating early is better.

Treating early is better. However, a government operated health care system is not ideal. Obama's plan to create a government type policy program serves to deliberately undercut the health insurance market. Since it is a government program and will be based on trends, we will either get the same costs that occur now only from the government, or we will get a drastically reduced cost that dips into the treasury every single time it runs a negative. Which will be often. Another problem is the distinct lack of reward for competence that is awarded now by doctor's costs. In general, a more competent doctor will cost more. Why? They have more training, experience, etc. With Universal Health Care, and government mandated costs associated therein you get assembly line style doctor's. Quality is degraded to quantity.

Assuming that Obama does not mandate costs for operations, exams, etc., the Health Care Plan he provides would then have to compensate for the current market value of these procedures. Since his goal is to lower the cost of health care, he would then have to propose a system of inexpensive health care plans, but meet the market value of the procedures through means other than revenue. Thus, dipping into the treasury to meet the negatives that will be produced.

Hope was a byproduct, not an end of the Obama campaign. He made it more than clear, he made it ABUNDANTLY clear what his positions were and people supported him because they agreed with his positions, in comparison to McCain's if nothing else. The only way you could claim otherwise is willful ignorance.

I went to both of their websites and found pretty clear information as to where they stood on each topic. Perhaps you didn't do the same? McCain had clear plans outlined on his site and in some cases were much more clear than Obama's proposed plans. Note, I didn't say they were necessarily better, but they were more clear.

The only definitive thing I noted about Obama's campaign was spouting 'Change' at everything. Yet, I do not feel that much will be changed. Washington will increase debt spending for many years, continue to support bailouts of the elite with little to no stipulations, continue to support large mishandled businesses by bailing them out with absolutely no future leverage, and increase the indebtedness of our children. To believe anything else is willful ignorance as you so eloquently stated.

Whatever your opinion of Republicans or Democrats, you must realize that the Democrats had a majority in Congress and did not block bailouts, etc. They were just as happy to appease their lobby groups as they will be in the future. That goes for both Obama and McCain. Obama says 'Change' but then followed along with the other sheep in Congress.

We have $10 trillion in debt that will only increase and I have not heard any sane or rational arguments from a Republican or Democrat on what the hell they propose to do about it. Other than keep spending our children's future.

an improvement of the image of America, which could and should be better. But America will not change all that much

That is what is so silly about it all. People think Bush caused so many Europeans to hate America, but they conveniently forget how angry people at the UN were with us during the 90s under Clinton. France storming out of meetings in a fit during Warren Christopher's goodbye dinner, etc. The ultra-hawk Albright (whose father was Rice's professor and influenced her to go into public service) pissing off everyone in the Security Council, talking tough to Serbs and undermining peace negotiations, etc. But not backing it up.

Chicago and Illinois are still run by criminals, Obama never stood up to them but instead tolerated them. And from all the populist talk of "evil greedy wall street" from Congress, yet never any talk about "greedy congressmen" like Frank, Schumer, etc, I don't expect Obama to stand up to the crooks in his party either, just like Bush didn't stand up to Republicans that much.

the creation of jobs through infrastructure projects, I can get behind that!

I don't know, that didn't help Japan pull of it's slump for over 10 years. And it also didn't pull us out of the great depression either. Some economists think it actually made things worse since it put many people out of business esp small construction company owners.

What I found very interesting was that in a world-wide poll, 75% would have voted for Obama if they could. In Europe, this increased to 80-90%, depending on the country. While America may not have given a clear mandate to Obama, the rest of the world clearly has. I can't say whether he'll be a good president yet but he already has a huge advantage in the realm of foreign policy.

Perhaps I am odd, but I think illegal immigrants might take away more than they add to GDP. Why?

The money they generate is not always taxed--they are paid under the table, and much of that goes to foreign countries rather than into "our" economy.

There wasn't much change--both pulled their respective party lines.

One "sold" change better than the other even if he did say change wouldn't come tomorrow or even in the first term...

Both economic plans will increase the deficit prior to making it smaller, and I don't know how you "cut" taxes, increase spending, and make the "economics" better :)

A Canadian friend of mine laments having to wait to get treatment where we can just walk in even if it costs. Remember, those regional hospitals that get federal dollars can not turn you away... A two-tiered system of county/state/federal doctors could be used, but those "with funds" would likely just see their own... I'd welcome that change.

What bothered me about the election was:

1. Spin--both parties knew their economic plans were based on the "pre-collapse" economic situation, but neither altered their position--NPR had a story where Obama's financial peeps were quoted as saying they were so concerned with winning the election that they had not altered their position due to the altered reality...

2. If you can't simply state your position and stand behind it, you shouldn't take a position on a subject...I want to see people protect ALL of our freedoms (constitution and all of the amendments...).